The Vatican Information Service is a news service, founded in the Holy See Press Office, that provides information about the Magisterium and the pastoral activities of the Holy Father and the Roman Curia...[+]

Last 5 news

Thursday, July 15, 2010

VATICAN CITY, 15 JUL 2010 (VIS) - The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith today published its new "Norms concerning the most serious crimes". Given below is the text of an explanatory note on the new measures, issued by Holy See Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J.

In 2001 the Holy Father John Paul II promulgated a very important document, the Motu Proprio "Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela", which gave the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responsibility to deal with and judge a series of particularly serious crimes within the ambit of canon law. This responsibility had previously been attributed also to other dicasteries, or was not completely clear.

The Motu Proprio (the "law" in the strict sense) was accompanied by a series of practical and procedural Norms, known as "Normae de gravioribus delictis". Over the nine years since then, experience has naturally suggested that these Norms be integrated and updated, so as to streamline and simplify the procedures and make them more effective, and to take account of new problems. This has been achieved principally by the Pope attributing new "faculties" to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; faculties which, however, were not organically integrated into the initial Norms. This has now come about, within the context of a systematic revision of those Norms.

The serious crimes to which the regulations referred concerned vital aspects of Church life: the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance, but also sexual abuse committed by a priest against a minor under the age of eighteen.

The vast public echo this latter kind of crime has had over recent years has attracted great attention and generated intense debate on the norms and procedures applied by the Church to judge and punish such acts.

It is right, then, that there should be complete clarity concerning the regulations currently in force in this field, and that these regulations be presented organically so as to facilitate the work of the people who deal with these matters.

An initial clarification - especially for use by the media - was provided recently with the publication on the Holy See website of a brief "Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations". The publication of the new Norms is, however, quite a different thing, providing us with an official and updated legal text which is valid for the whole Church.

In order to facilitate the reading of the Norms by a non-specialist public, particularly interested in the problems of sexual abuse, we will seek to highlight a number of important aspects:

Among the novelties introduced with respect to the earlier Norms, mention must be made, above all, of measures intended to accelerate procedures, such as the possibility of not following the "judicial process" but proceeding by "extrajudicial decree", or that of presenting (in particular circumstances) the most serious cases to the Holy Father with a view to dismissing the offender from the clerical state.

Another Norm intended to simplify earlier problems and to take account of the evolution of the situation in the Church concerns the possibility of having not only priests but also lay persons as members of the tribunal staff, or as lawyers or prosecutors. Likewise, in order to undertake these functions it is no longer strictly necessary to have a doctorate in canon law, but the required competency can also be proved in another way; for example, with a licentiate.

Another aspect worthy of note is the increase of the statue of limitations from ten years to twenty years, with the possibility of extension even beyond that period.

Another significant aspect is establishing parity between the abuse of mentally disabled people and that of minors, and the introduction of a new category: paedophile pornography. This is defined as: "the acquisition, possession or disclosure" by a member of the clergy, "in any way and by any means, of pornographic images of minors under the age of fourteen".

Regulations concerning the secrecy of trials are maintained, in order to safeguard the dignity of all the people involved.

One point that remains untouched, though it has often been the subject of discussion in recent times, concerns collaboration with the civil authorities. It must be borne in mind that the Norms being published today are part of the penal code of canon law, which is complete in itself and entirely distinct from the law of States.

On this subject, however, it is important to take note of the "Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations", as published on the Holy See website. In that Guide, the phrase "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed" is contained in the section dedicated to "Preliminary Procedures". This means that in the practice suggested by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith it is necessary to comply with the requirements of law in the various countries, and to do so in good time, not during or subsequent to the canonical trial.

Today's publication of the Norms makes a great contribution to the clarity and certainty of law in this field; a field in which the Church is today strongly committed to proceeding with rigour and transparency so as to respond fully to the just expectations of moral coherence and evangelical sanctity nourished by the faithful and by public opinion, and which the Holy Father has constantly reiterated.

Of course, many other measures and initiatives are required from the various ecclesiastical bodies. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is currently examining how to help the bishops of the world formulate and develop, coherently and effectively, the indications and guidelines necessary to face the problems of the sexual abuse of minors, either by members of the clergy or within the environment of activities and institutions connected with the Church, bearing in mind the situation and the problems of the societies in which they operate.

This will be another crucial step on the Church's journey as she translates into permanent practice and continuous awareness the fruits of the teachings and ideas that have matured over the course of the painful events of the "crisis" engendered by sexual abuse by members of the clergy.

In order to complete this brief overview of the principal novelties contained in the "Norms", mention must also be made of those that refer to crimes of a different nature. In this case too it is not so much a case of introducing new substance as of integrating rules that are already in force so as to obtain a better ordered and more organic set of regulations on the "most serious crimes" reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

These include crimes against the faith (heresy, apostasy and schism) for which competency normally falls to ordinaries, although the Congregation becomes competent in the case of an appeal; the malicious recording and disclosure of sacramental Confession about which a decree of condemnation was published in 1988; and the attempted ordination of women, about which a decree was published in 2007.

§ 1. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, according to art. 52 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus[1], judges delicts against the faith, as well as the more grave delicts committed against morals and in the celebration of the sacraments and, whenever necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of both common and proper law, with due regard for the competence of the Apostolic Penitentiary[2] and in keeping with Agendi ratio in doctrinarum examine.[3]

§ 2. With regard to the delicts mentioned above in § 1, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by mandate of the Roman Pontiff, may judge Cardinals, Patriarchs, Legates of the Apostolic See, Bishops as well as other physical persons mentioned in can. 1405 § 3 of the Code of Canon Law[4], and in can. 1061 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.[5]

§ 3. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges the reserved delicts mentioned in § 1 according to the following norms.

Art. 2

§ 1. The delicts against the faith referred to in art. 1 are heresy, apostasy and schism according to the norm of can. 751[6] and 1364[7] of the Code of Canon Law, and can. 1436[8] and 1437[9] of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

§ 2. In the abovementioned cases referred to in § 1, it pertains to the Ordinary or Hierarch to remit, by norm of law, if it be the case, the latae sententiae excommunication and likewise to undertake a judicial trial in the first instance or issue an extrajudicial decree, with due regard for the right of appeal or of recourse to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Art. 3

§ 1. The more grave delicts against the sanctity of the most Holy Sacrifice and Sacra­ment of the Eucharist reserved to the Congre­gation for the Doctrine of the Faith for judgment are:

1° the taking or retaining for a sacrile­gious purpose or the throwing away of the consecrated species[10], as mentioned in can. 1367 of the Code of Canon Law[11], and in can. 1442 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches[12];

2° attempting the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice spoken of in can. 1378 § 2, n. 1, of the Code of Canon Law[13];

3° the simulation of the same, spoken of in can. 1379 of the Code of Canon Law[14] and in can. 1443 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches[15];

4° the concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice prohibited in can. 908 of the Code of Canon Law[16], and in can. 702 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches[17], spoken of in can. 1365 of the Code of Canon Law[18], and in can. 1440 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches[19], with ministers of ecclesial communities which do not have apostolic succession and do not acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination.

§ 2. Also reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the delict which consists in the consecration for a sacrilegious purpose of one matter without the other or even of both, either within or outside of the eucharistic celebration[20]. One who has perpetrated this delict is to be punished according to the gravity of the crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition.

Art. 4

§ 1. The more grave delicts against the sanctity of the Sacrament of Penance reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are:

1° the absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, mentioned in can. 1378 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law[21], and in can. 1457 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches[22];

2° attempted sacramental absolution or the prohibited hearing of confession, mentioned in can. 1378 § 2, 2° of the Code of Canon Law[23];

3° simulated sacramental absolution, mentioned in can. 1379 of the Code of Canon Law[24],and in can. 1443 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches[25];

4° the solicitation to a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue in the act, on the occasion, or under the pretext of confession, as mentioned in can. 1387 of the Code of Canon Law[26], and in can. 1458 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches[27], if it is directed to sinning with the confessor himself;

5° the direct and indirect violation of the sacramental seal, mentioned in can. 1388 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law[28],and in can. 1456 §1 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches[29];

§ 2. With due regard for § 1, n. 5, also reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the more grave delict which consists in the recording, by whatever technical means, or in the malicious diffusion through communications media, of what is said in sacramental confession, whether true or false, by the confessor or the penitent. Anyone who commits such a delict is to punished according to the gravity of the crime, not excluding, if he be a cleric, dismissal or deposition[30].

Art. 5

The more grave delict of the attempted sacred ordination of a woman is also reserved to the

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

1° With due regard for can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, both the one who attempts to confer sacred ordination on a woman, and she who attempts to receive sacred ordination, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

2° If the one attempting to confer sacred ordination, or the woman who attempts to receive sacred ordination, is a member of the Christian faithful subject to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, with due regard for can. 1443 of that Code, he or she is to be punished by major excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

3° If the guilty party is a cleric he may be punished by dismissal or deposition[31].

Art. 6

§ 1. The more grave delicts against morals which are reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are:

1° the delict against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of eighteen years; in this case, a person who habitually lacks the use of reason is to be considered equivalent to a minor.

2° the acquisition, possession, or distribution by a cleric of pornographic images of minors under the age of fourteen, for purposes of sexual gratification, by whatever means or using whatever technology;

§ 2. A cleric who commits the delicts mentioned above in § 1 is to be punished according to the gravity of his crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition.

Art. 7

§ 1. A criminal action for delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by prescription after twenty years, with due regard to the right of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to derogate from prescription in individual cases.

§ 2. Prescription runs according to the norm of can. 1362 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law[32], and can. 1152 § 3 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches[33]. However, in the delict mentioned in art. 6 §1 n. 1, prescription begins to run from the day on which a minor completes his eighteenth year of age.

Part Two

PROCEDURAL NORMS

Title I

The Constitution and Competence of the Tribunal

Art. 8

§ 1. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the Supreme Apostolic Tribunal for the Latin Church as well as the Eastern Catholic Churches, for the judgment of the delicts defined in the preceding articles.

§ 2. This Supreme Tribunal also judges other delicts of which a defendant is accused by the Promotor of Justice, by reason of connection of person and complicity.

§ 3. The sentences of this Supreme Tribunal, rendered within the limits of its proper competence, do not need to be submitted for the approval of the Supreme Pontiff.

Art. 9

§ 1. The Members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are ipso iure the judges of this Supreme Tribunal.

§ 2. The Prefect of the Congregation pre­sides as first among equals over the college of the Members, and if the office of Prefect is va­cant or if the Prefect himself is impeded, the Secre­tary of the Congregation carries out his duties.

§ 3. It is the responsibility of the Prefect of the Congregation to nominate additional stable or deputed judges.

Art. 10

It is necessary that such appointed judges be priests, of mature age, possessing a doctorate in canon law, outstanding in good morals, prudence and expertise in the law. Such priests may at the same time exercise a judicial or consultative function before another Dicastery of the Roman Curia.

Art. 11

To present and sustain an accusation a Promotor of Justice is to be appointed, who is to be a priest, possessing a doctorate in canon law, outstanding in good morals, prudence, and expertise in the law. He is to carry out his office in all grades of judgment.

Art. 12

For the functions of Notary and Chan­cellor, priests are appointed, whether or not they are officials of this Congregation.

Art. 13

The role of Advocate or Procurator is carried out by a priest possessing a doctorate in canon law. He is to be approved by the presiding judge of the college.

Art. 14

Indeed, in the other tribunals dealing with cases under these norms, only priests can validly carry out the functions of Judge, Promotor of Justice, Notary, and Patron [Procurator and Advocate].

Art 15

With regard to the provisions of can. 1421 of the Code of Canon Law[34],and can. 1087 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches[35], the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith may dispense from the requirements of the priesthood and of a doctorate in Canon Law.

Art. 16

Whenever the Ordinary or Hierarch receives a report of a more grave delict, which has at least the semblance of truth, once the preliminary investigation has been completed, he is to communicate the matter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which, unless it calls the case to itself due to particular circumstances, will direct the Ordinary or Hierarch how to proceed further, with due regard, however, for the right to appeal, if the case warrents, against a sentence of the first instance only to the Supreme Tribunal of this same Congregation.

Art. 17

If a case is referred directly to the Congregation without a preliminary in­ves­tigation having been undertaken, the steps prelim­inary to the process, which fall by common law to the Ordinary or Hierarch, may be carried out by the Congregation itself.

Art. 18

With full respect for the right of defense, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith may sanate acts in cases lawfully presented to it if merely procedural laws have been violated by lower Tribunals acting by mandate of the same Congregation or according to art. 16.

Art. 19

With due regard for the right of the Ordinary to impose from the outset of the preliminary investigation those measures which are established in can. 1722 of the Code of Canon Law[36], or in can. 1473 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches[37], the respective presiding judge may, at the request of the Promotor of Justice, exercise the same power under the same conditions determined in the canons themselves.

Art. 20

The Supreme Tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges in second instance:

1° cases adjudicated in first instance by lower tribunals;

2° cases decided by this same Supreme Apostolic Tribunal in first instance.

Title II

The Procedure to be followed in the Judicial Trial

Art. 21

§ 1. The more grave delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are to be tried in a judicial process.

§ 2. However, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith may:

1° decide, in individual cases, ex officio or when requested by the Ordinary or Hierarch, to proceed by extrajudicial decree, as provided in can. 1720 of the Code of Canon Law[38] and can. 1486 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches[39]. However, perpetual expiatory penalties may only be imposed by mandate of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

2° present the most grave cases to the decision of the Roman Pontiff with regard to dismissal from the clerical state or deposition, together with dispensation from the law of celibacy, when it is manifestly evident that the delict was committed and after having given the guilty party the possibility of defending himself.

Art. 22

The Prefect is to constitute a turnus of three or five judges to try the case.

Art. 23

If in the appellate stage the Promotor of Justice brings forward a speci­fically dif­ferent accusation, this Supreme Tribunal can admit it and judge it as if at first instance.

Art. 24

§ 1. In cases concerning the delicts mentioned of in art. 4 §1, the Tribunal cannot indicate the name of the accuser to either the accused or his patron unless the accuser has expressly consented.

§ 2. This same Tribunal must consider the particular importance of the question concerning the credibility of the accuser.

§ 3. Nevertheless, it must always be observed that any danger of violating the sacramental seal be altogether avoided.

Art 25

If an incidental question arises, the college is to decide the matter by decree most expeditiously [expeditissime, cf. cann. 1629, n.5˚ CIC; 1310, n. 5˚ CCEO].

Art. 26

§ 1. With due regard for the right to appeal to this Supreme Tribunal, once an instance has been finished in any manner before another tribunal, all of the acts of the case are to be transmitted ex officio to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as soon as possible.

§ 2 The right of the Promotor of Justice of the Congre­ga­tion to challenge a sentence runs from the day on which the sentence of first instance is made known to this same Promotor.

Art. 27

Recourse may be had against singular administrative acts which have been decreed or approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in cases of reserved delicts. Such recourse must be presented within the preemptory period of sixty canonical days to the Ordinary Session of the Congregation (the Feria IV) which will judge on the merits of the case and the lawfulness of the Decree. Any further recourse as mentioned in art. 123 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus is excluded[40].

Art. 28

A res iudicata occurs:

1° if a sentence has been rendered in second instance;

2° if an appeal against a sentence has not been proposed within a month;

3° if, in the appellate grade, the instance is abated or is renounced;

4° if the sentence has been rendered in accord with the norm of art.20.

Art. 29

§ 1. Judicial expenses are to be paid as the sentence has determined.

§ 2. If the defendant is not able to pay the expenses, they are to be paid by the Ordinary or Hierarch of the case.

Art. 30

§ 1. Cases of this nature are subject to the pontifical secret.[41]

§ 2. Whoever has violated the secret, whe­ther deliberately (ex dolo) or through grave neg­li­gence, and has caused some harm to the accused or to the witnesses, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty by the higher turnus at the insistence of the injured party or even ex officio.

Art. 31

In these cases, together with the prescripts of these norms, by which all Tribunals of the Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Churches are bound, the canons concerning delicts and penalties as well as the canons concerning the penal process of each Code also must be applied.

- Fr. Johannes Wilhelmus Maria Lisen of the clergy of Roermond, Netherlands, professor of biblical exegesis and theology at the major seminary of Roermond in Rolduc, and a member of the International Theological Commision, and Fr. Robertus Gerardus Leonia Maria Mutsaerts of the clergy of 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands, pastor at Heeze and president of the diocesan commission for appointments, as auxiliaries of the diocese of 's-Hertogenbosch (area 3,826, population 2,058,000, Catholics 1,157,000, priests 845, permanent deacons 83, religious 3,341). Bishop-elect Lisen was born in Oosterhout, Netherlands in 1960 and ordained a priest in 1984. Bishop-elect Mutsaerts was born in Tilburg, Netherlands in 1958 and ordained a priest in 1993.

- Fr. Fernando Bascope Muller S.D.B., master of novices of the Salesian inspectorate of Bolivia and director of that formative community, and Fr. Eugenio Scarpellini of the clergy of the diocese of Bergamo, Italy, adjunct secretary general of the Bolivian Episcopal Conference, as auxiliaries of El Alto (area 23,000, population 1,266,000, Catholics 950,000, priests 61, permanent deacons 19, religious 191), Bolivia. Bishop-elect Bascope Muller was born in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia in 1962 and ordained a priest in 1991. Bishop-elect Scarpellini was born in Verdellino, Italy in 1954 and ordained a priest in 1978.

- Msgr. Joaquin Gimeno Lahoz, vicar general of Comodoro-Rivadavia, Argentina, as bishop of the same diocese (area 146,752, population 521,391, Catholics 400,060, priests 32, permanent deacons 1, religious 87). The bishop-elect was born in La Mata de Olmos, Spain in 1948 and ordained a priest in 1973.

- Fr. Marko Semren O.F.M., guardian of the Franciscan convent of Gorica-Livno, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and professor of the Franciscan Theological Institute of Sarajevo, as auxiliary of the diocese of Banja Luka (area 16,457, population 550,000, Catholics 37,797, priests 68, religious 136), Bosnia and Herzegovina. The bishop-elect was born in Bila, Bosnia Herzegovina in 1954 and ordained a priest in 1981.
NEA:NER/ VIS 20100715 (330)

- Fr. Johannes Wilhelmus Maria Lisen of the clergy of Roermond, Netherlands, professor of biblical exegesis and theology at the major seminary of Roermond in Rolduc, and a member of the International Theological Commision, and Fr. Robertus Gerardus Leonia Maria Mutsaerts of the clergy of 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands, pastor at Heeze and president of the diocesan commission for appointments, as auxiliaries of the diocese of 's-Hertogenbosch (area 3,826, population 2,058,000, Catholics 1,157,000, priests 845, permanent deacons 83, religious 3,341). Bishop-elect Lisen was born in Oosterhout, Netherlands in 1960 and ordained a priest in 1984. Bishop-elect Mutsaerts was born in Tilburg, Netherlands in 1958 and ordained a priest in 1993.

- Fr. Fernando Bascope Muller S.D.B., master of novices of the Salesian inspectorate of Bolivia and director of that formative community, and Fr. Eugenio Scarpellini of the clergy of the diocese of Bergamo, Italy, adjunct secretary general of the Bolivian Episcopal Conference, as auxiliaries of El Alto (area 23,000, population 1,266,000, Catholics 950,000, priests 61, permanent deacons 19, religious 191), Bolivia. Bishop-elect Bascope Muller was born in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia in 1962 and ordained a priest in 1991. Bishop-elect Scarpellini was born in Verdellino, Italy in 1954 and ordained a priest in 1978.

- Msgr. Joaquin Gimeno Lahoz, vicar general of Comodoro-Rivadavia, Argentina, as bishop of the same diocese (area 146,752, population 521,391, Catholics 400,060, priests 32, permanent deacons 1, religious 87). The bishop-elect was born in La Mata de Olmos, Spain in 1948 and ordained a priest in 1973.

- Fr. Marko Semren O.F.M., guardian of the Franciscan convent of Gorica-Livno, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and professor of the Franciscan Theological Institute of Sarajevo, as auxiliary of the diocese of Banja Luka (area 16,457, population 550,000, Catholics 37,797, priests 68, religious 136), Bosnia and Herzegovina. The bishop-elect was born in Bila, Bosnia Herzegovina in 1954 and ordained a priest in 1981.